Be Careful What You Vote For

Suppose you had signed up for an expensive package of on-demand movies in glorious full HD (1920 x 1080), but discovered that most of the programming is in pathetic DVD resolution (720 x 480). Fortunately the new MDA guideline stipulates that cancelling charges must be pro-rated, on new contracts capped at 2 years. But what is the recourse if you voted for a president who fails to deliver on your expectations?

The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) seems to be embarking on another "education exercise" on behalf of the powers seated on high. Coming after an earlier survey debunking the effects of social media on the last election, they have produced another study to prove that voters got it wrong, again.

Apparently a majority of respondents believe the elected president is there to ensure the Government manages the economy well. Some even believe he is free to speak publicly on national issues that are important to us. 66 percent of those surveyed actually thinks the least he could do was to make sure the Government does what it promised during the hustings of the general election. In other words, for 4 million smackeroos, this guy better justify his existence. What we don't want is another free loader who summarises his years of service with a memoir aptly titled "Why Am I Here?"

Indeed, why is there a president, installed at great expense to the taxpayers, if all he does is shake hands with foreign visitors and speak out for the people only when he has been given permission to do so? If he requires official authorisation just to open his mouth, where will he find the authority to disagree with the government's spending of the reserves and object to appointment of cronies to high office? With this godless government in office, personal religious and moral conviction is already checked out at the door.

If there is a legal basis to nullify the election outcome, nobody is interested to explore it. One constitutional law expert even proposed using TV drama to "educate" the people, so they won't feel short-changed. "Have a 24-part Channel 8 drama on some features of the presidency, showing crises and so on, set the date at 2050. You might actually succeed." SMU lecturer Eugene Tan is less sanguine, opining that any Government attempt to educate voters will be perceived as trying to "straitjacket" the office. The soap opera continues.